L.A. Times Outlines June 3 Judicial ‘Races’

The Los Angeles Times newspaper is outlining the June 3 election options while noting that early voting actually began May 5. The paper notes the non-race nature of the process, reporting that “… dozens of Los Angeles Superior Court judges also are up for reelection this year, but, with one exception, their names won’t be on the ballot and they can be considered reelected because no challengers filed to run against them… but the ballot will include one sitting judge and his challenger, plus candidates vying to succeed 13 judges who declined to run for reelection. In three of those races, only a single candidate filed to run in each, so those races are essentially decided, even though voters will see those three candidates’ names on the ballot.”
 
Got it? Good. Oh, and also from the Times, “… in 10 other races, voters must choose among candidates vying to be elected to judicial seats. Of those, eight will be wrapped up in June because they feature only two candidates each, virtually guaranteeing that one will win a majority. In the two races with three candidates, November runoffs are possible.”
 
Check out the story and find a link to endorsements here: FAQs: The Times’ endorsement process for the June 3 elections

Homeowners Silenced Over Mortgage Complaints

It seems that any frustration over mortgage disputes has an added twist: Shut up about the problem. Reuters is reporting that “… mortgage payment collectors at companies including Ocwen, Bank of America Corp and PNC Financial Services Group are agreeing to ease the terms of borrowers’ underwater mortgages, but they are increasingly demanding that homeowners promise not to insult them publicly, consumer lawyers say. In many cases, they are demanding that homeowners’ lawyers agree to the same terms. Sometimes, they even require borrowers to agree not to sue them again.”
 
Reuters says that lawyers make this point: if a collector, known as a servicer, makes an error, getting everything fixed can be a nightmare without litigation or public outcry. The news service also notes cites a 2013 report by the National Consumer Law Center that “… found that servicers routinely lost borrowers’ paperwork, inaccurately input information, failed to send important letters to the correct address—or sometimes just didn’t send them at all.”
 
Consumer advocates are outraged; law enforcement is starting investigations. Read about it here:

Senate Leader Seeks More Court Spending

Now that California’s budget season is really upon us, with a June 15 deadline looming, it seems state Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg is emerging as a champion for increased court spending – at least he’s including it among argument to increase state spending as opposed to diverting money to a “rainy day fund.”
 
The Sacramento Bee newspaper’s Capitol Alert blog outlines that Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat “… said he will continue to push for expanding California’s public preschool program as the Legislature negotiates the state budget with Brown in the coming weeks. He also called out funding for courts, universities and Medi-Cal reimbursement as areas he thinks are inadequate in the budget proposal…”
 

Divorced? You Might Want To Double-Check That

With California divorce courts slowing to a snail’s pace, some citizens who want to re-marry are finding out that they can’t – because clerks have not yet processed required documents for a judge’s signature. And now Ted Rall, one of the more famous cartoonists contributing to the Los Angeles Times, has issued both a cartoon and a column mocking the sorry state of our courts.
 
He suggests switching it all to the Internet, using a lie-detecting algorithm and delivering results via robots and drones. He also solidifies his optimist cred by noting a positive side to the mess: Every cloud has a silver lining. Because so many courthouses have closed, some Californians are automatically getting exempted from jury duty: “In San Bernardino County, the Superior Court has stopped summoning jurors from Needles, making the guarantee of a jury of one’s peers elusive. Because of court closures in the High Desert, a trip to court from Needles can take some residents 3 1/2 hours.”
 

It’s a fridge-worthy cartoon and column: If our courts are broke, how can Californians get divorced? An idea.

Budget Analysis Continues

Gov. Brown’s “May revision” budget continues to draw attention and analysis, and the Sacramento Business Journal has a good take on how the spending plan pushes court finding issues past November’s election cycle. The BizJournal reports that “… the proposed budget revise points to a new workload-based funding model to allocate money where most needed. The document also expresses support for a two-year strategy to court stabilization that takes time to evaluate and modernize court operations.”

Then it adds: Yet “the administration has been clear that state-funded entities should not expect restorations of reductions — moving forward, government has to be done differently,” the section of the budget summary on the judicial branch reads. That is likely to disappoint labor leaders who hoped some of the nearly 4,000 jobs eliminated over the past years might be reclaimed. Read the BizJournal story here:

California’s trial courts get more money in state budget, but not enough to maintain status quo – Sacramento Business Journal

Brown Budget Targets Employee Pensions

Court-community reviews of Gov. Brown’s new budget are mixed, with state Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye terming it “encouraging” in a statement but labor advocates worried about plans to increase court employees contributions to their pensions. Meanwhile, along with a $60 million increase from his previous plans, Gov. Brown is framing the budget as a two-year process, meaning some real decisions might come after his Nov. re-election bid.
CCM staff photo

CCM staff photo

 
Discussions are no doubt being held to figure out what the next four weeks will bring. But the Contra Costa Times is among those noting lawmaker support for more courts funding, reporting that “… the chief justice had backing from state legislators, who recently proposed restoring more than $200 million in court funding in the upcoming budget year. Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, and the judiciary committee chairman, said Brown’s courts budget is still ‘far short’ of the hundreds of millions of dollars it needs to handle its caseloads and keep courthouses open and running.”
 
Missing from the discussion so far: re-opening any of the closed courts or re-hiring any of the nearly 4,000 court workrs laid off over the past few years.
 

More Courts Charging Fees For Online Records

 
More California courts are joining Los Angeles in charging people to look at civil court records online, raising concerns among some public access groups and others. Starting April 23, Alameda County Superior Court charges $1 for each of the first five pages of a civil court record downloaded online, with the cost dropping to 50 per page after that and capped at $40 total.
 
Los Angeles Superior Court fees start $4.75 for each record searched. Teresa Ruano, spokeswoman for the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, says that “… there’s a budget crisis in the courts. Revenue is part of the solution, a small part of the solution.”
 

You can read the AP story in the Greenfield Reporter here.  

Real Budget Debate Begins Today

Months of polite positioning ended today with the latest draft of Gov. Brown’s budget, with Republicans perhaps surprisingly welcoming of his spending plan while Democrats worried about lack of funds for things like social programs, education and courts. While most of the headline coverage focused on the state’s “rainy day fund” and debt payments, deeper coverage outlined the coming battle including a cautious outlook on judicial branch money.
 
CA State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) supports increased funds for courts.

CA State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) supports increased funds for courts.

Comments of note: Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), says The Los Angeles Times, “… signaled the majority party will want to spend more on programs that were cut in the past.” The paper quoted the senator including courts in his consideration: “It is time to consider thoughtful and careful reinvestment in areas such as the courts, education, healthcare, mental health, early childhood education and infrastructure that will have an immediate, positive impact on the entire state.” 
 
The Times also noted that California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye said the governor’s budget was “encouraging because it identifies additional funding and recognizes the need for fiscal stability with a creative proposal for a two-year budgeting formula for the trial courts.” She added the very cautious: “I look forward to working with the Governor and the Legislature before the adoption of the Budget Act to ensure that all Californians have access to justice.”
 
Here’s a good reaction story from the Times:

CA Budget Draft Due Tomorrow (Tues., May 13)

Photo: gov.ca.gov.com

Photo: gov.ca.gov.com



The home stretch for California’s 2014 budget begins this week as Gov. Jerry Brown releases his latest draft spending plan tomorrow (Tues. May 13), in Sacramento. The headlines will no doubt focus on the “rainy day fund” discussion, and most of the speculation is that state courts – especially the civil courts – are not going to be happy. Remember that it was the governor’s draft plans that prompted street protests and lawsuits about this time last year.
 
A bit part of that rainy day fund will go toard some $200 billion in state debt that lawmakers have not figured out how to repay. A lot of that debt is the result of pension costs, according to a state fiscal analyst, so you can expect public employee pensions to come under fire during the debate. You’ll be able to follow the budget release in many places, but you might consider Allen Young at the Sacramento Business Journal for a nicely skeptical take on the governor’s spending plan.
 

June Budget Challenges Union Talks

With next month’s state budget deadlines looming, several union contracts remain in limbo – including the “California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment” group. If they miss next month’s deadline for an agreement-and-funding decision, they will have to wait until August to resume discussions. Union officials told the Sacramento Bee newspaper that an unexpected shift in top management has delayed the agreement, but that time is growing short.
 
Missing the deadline this year would be especially irritating, not only because the state has a surplus budget for the first time in years but because many state-worker unions are getting raises that kick in July 1.